Build & encode a GW1 skill template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return of a template code, a legality report with specific checks, per-skill costs, and an energy-sustainability outlook, giving a comprehensive view of behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return values. It lacks details on error handling or exact output format, but is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., skill names, attribute points).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The tool name, title, and description clearly state it builds and encodes a GW1 skill template, specifying the action (build/encode), resource (skill template), and return values. It is well-distinguished from sibling tools like search or analysis tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises using the tool 'to construct and sanity-check a build before sharing it,' providing clear context. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling tools imply different use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.